THE

JURIS T.

NEW SERIES.

VOL. XI.-PART II.

CONTAINING

ORIGINAL ARTICLES ON LEGAL SUBJECTS,

ALL IMPORTANT STATUTES,

THE RULES AND ORDERS OF THE VARIOUS COURTS,

CAUSE LISTS,

AND MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL INFORMATION,

FOR

THE YEAR 1865:

WITH AN

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

LONDON:

H. SWEET, 3, CHANCERY LANE;

STEVENS & SONS, 26, BELL YARD, LINCOLN'S INN.

DUBLIN:

HODGES, SMITH, & CO., GRAFTON STREET.

LIBRARY OF THE

LELEAD STANFORD, JR., UNIVERSITY

LAW DEPARTMENT.

58,429

JANUARY 14, 1865.

Now ready, in royal 12mo., price 168. 6d. cloth,

THE PRACTICE in LUNACY. Fourth Edition. DEE

With Notes of Cases, and the most recent Decisions; Duties of Committees, Forms, Costs, the Statutes, General Orders, and copious Index, adapted to the Provisions of "The Lunacy Regulation Acts, 1853 and 1862." By JOSEPH ELMER, of the Office of the Masters in Lunacy.

Stevens, Sons, & Haynes, 26, Bell-yard.

Now ready, price 108. 6d., the Third Edition of the

The Directors are prepared to ISSUE DEBENTURES for one

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE BY THOMAS three, and five years at 5, 5, and 6 per cent. respectively

DEEDS of ARRANGEMENT with CREDITORS. PELICAN LIFE INSURANCE OFFICE,

The Office of THE JURIST is removed to No. 39, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, W. C., where all commu-

nications for the Editor are requested to be addressed.

Orders for Advertisements, and Letters on business matters, to be addressed to the Publisher as above.

THE JURIST.

LONDON, JANUARY 14, 1865.

pared by the plaintiffs, and were executed both by the lady and the defendant. The marriage took place, and the defendant afterwards refusing to pay the costs of preparing the settlements, an action was brought which resulted in a special case, stating the above facts, for the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas. The case was argued in the Sittings after Trinity Term, and the Court took time to consider its judgment; and in last Michaelmas Term Mr. Justice Willes delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court, holding that the defendant was liable to pay the costs of the settlement. The Court of Common Pleas expressly held that the husband is liable to reimburse the expenses of the settlement, which the lady, her father, or person standing in loco parentis may have incurred. Mr. Justice Willes puts the decision upon this ground as distinguished from the ground of any express agency, in support of which the facts supplied some evidence. Mr. Justice Willes observes in the course of the judgment, " The employment of the lady's solicitor to prepare the settlement is not a mere matter of compliment or patronage: it has also the substantial object of satisfying the lady's friends that all proper care has been exercised on her behalf by some person in whom they confide, and of giving a remedy for negligence by action against the solicitor." As to the power of an infant to enter into such a contract, Mr. Justice Willes goes on to say, "The principal contract of marriage was one which it was competent for an infant to enter upon. She had no property to settle, and would have had no certain provision without the settlement; and the preparation of the settlement was, therefore, beneficial, as securing to her at her election a proper provision, which may justly be considered a necessary suitable to her estate and condition." Certain articles have been held to be necessaries: meat, drink, wearing apparel, lodgings, medical advice, and medicine, are beyond all doubt necessaries for which an infant will always be held liable; but the term "necessaries" is not confined in all cases to such matters as are positively required for the infant's bodily sustenance. A suit of livery for the servant of an infant, who was a captain in the army, was held to be a necessary for which the infant was liable. (Vide Hands v. Slaney, 8 T. R. 578). So, too, a gold watch and breast-pin have been held to be necessaries for an undergraduate at a university, who was the eldest son of a member of Parliament, and a gentleman of fortune. (Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 42). So, where an infant was an invalid, and horse or carriage exercise was recom

THE doctrine that an infant is not liable on a contract entered into by him during infancy, except for necessaries, unless such contract be confirmed by him after he has attained the age of twenty-one years, is constantly before the Courts; but the question is always raised under the exception to the rule. The whole difficulty that arises turns on the meaning of the word "necessaries;" and the question, what are or are not necessaries, depending, as it does, entirely on the varied conditions and circumstances of the infant, will and must often be under consideration. The list of necessaries has lately received a new and important addition, in the case of Helps and Another v. Clayton, decided by the Court of Common Pleas in Michaelmas Term last, and reported 10 Jur., N. S., part 1, p. 1184. The decision in that case may be considered to have still further developed the doctrine as to the liability of infants for what constitute necessaries. It establishes the principle, that in some cases, and under particular circumstances, not only articles of bodily sustenance, education, personal ornaments, convalescent expenses, but even the costs of obtaining a legal assurance of a suitable provision for life, may be construed to be a necessary, for which an infant will be liable. In Helps and Another v. Clayton an action was brought to recover the amount of a solicitor's bill of costs for preparing a marriage settlement; and although the question the Court decided was, to some extent, one of fact, the Court being at liberty to draw inferences of fact, yet the judgment of the Court must be taken to decide a question of law; for although the question, whether articles supplied to an infant are necessaries, is one for the jury to decide, yet they are to do so under the guidance of the Court, by rules already laid down in numerous decisions. The Court, in Helps and Another v. Clayton, decided that a marriage settlement may be a necessary for an infant, and was so on the facts stated for the opinion of the Court in that case. The question in such cases, turning, as it does, on the status of the infant, a marriage settlement will certainly be held in future, on the authority of that case, to be a very common necessary for an infant. The facts in Helps and Another v. Clayton were shortly as follows:-The plaintiffs were solicitors practising at Gloucester, where the lady's father, Captain Somerset, resided. They had before been employed by Cap-mended by a medical man, and was resorted to by the tain Somerset. In August, 1862, the defendant, being infant, for the restoration of his health, these were engaged to be married to Captain Somerset's daughter, held to be necessaries for which the infant, having who was at that time an infant under twenty-one years contracted, was bound to pay. (Hart v. Prater, 1 of age, Captain Somerset called on the plaintiffs, with Jur. 623). We cite these cases to shew the extent to a letter from the defendant to him, containing cer- which the Courts have gone in deciding what are or tain proposals for a settlement, and instructed the are not necessaries. It would be hopeless to attempt plaintiffs to prepare settlements, and named a trus- to define any list of articles which are or are not necestee on behalf of the lady. Some communication saries. Many articles obviously unnecessary in the took place between the plaintiffs and the defend-case of most infants, have been held to be necessaries ant's solicitors, as to whose duty it was to prepare under certain circumstances. Indeed, until each sepathe deeds, but in the end the settlements were pre-rate want has received a judicial decision, a tradesman